Interestingly enough, the only time I pilfered text from an essay I wrote (for something other than WP) that is widely available, and used it on WP, nobody ever caught it and introduced the possibility of a copyvio - it still stands.
Mark
On 29/05/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Kate Turner (keturner@livejournal.com) [050530 08:37]:
Gregory Maxwell wrote in gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.misc:
As a result our database contains large quantities of violating material.
my understand of the relevant US law is that we are not required to aggressively remove copyright violations until requested by the copyright holder.
If someone ever codes the facility to zap old revisions easily, we could deal with such without great pain. The main barrier at present is that zapping old revs entails deleting the article then restoring all revs except the offender. On a heavily-trafficked page this present obvious logistical problems.
Our proactive approach, though, does stand us in good stead should we ever end up in a courtroom. Generally the copyvio page is *rabid* and that's good. Even if on many occasions the author of a given text has to point out they're the editor that added it to Wikipedia ;-)
- d.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l